Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1887-11-09
ONE OF A & RULINGS.

of the Grea9 Falls
Company to Condemn Land Entries
Made under the Desert Land Act.
The Helena Independent OF November 4
contains an item to the effect that the
United States Land Office there hadreceived
notice from s. NJ. S~tockslager, Assistant
.,ommission er OF the General Land Office
that desert land filings would not be re-
ceived on the townships bordering the Mis-
snuri from the mouth OF Smith River to
the mouth of Belt Creek, around Great
Falls, excepting the lands in the valleys OF
Belt Creek and Sun River. It adds that
this action was taken on the report OF
Special Agent John A. Gum, who reports
the lands as not desert lands, and corrobO-
rates his report by numerous
This is the result OF
NUMEROUS LAM CONTESTS
in the vicinity of Great Falls. The town
ships alluded to being traversed by the
Missouri from Smith River to Belt Creek.
In all these townships large tracts OF land
are held by members of the Great Falls
Townsite Company, theirfriends and agents.
In the spring OF 1856 a gentleman named
Wright, of Indiana, located under the Des'
ert Land Act q section OF land on the
brow of a high bench overlooking the town
of Great Falls, Last spring Il couple OF
men who are said to be agents of a member
of the Townsite Company, jump d the
south half of the section, built cabins
there and cultivated two small patches to
wheat. A Mr.. Gregg, of Fargo, brother-in:
law of Wright, acting as his agent, had
notices served on the men to leave, alter
which they gave notice of contest on the
plea the land was not desert in the mean
| ing of the act. In the meantime the wheat
favored by the wettest season ever known
in Northern Montana, matured and was
harvested, yielding an exceedingly slim
crop. The case was heard at Great Falls
about the middle of October, and q mum
| Der of witnesses swore that the land in
| question was
NOT DESERT LAND
in the meaning ofthe act. Special Agent Cum
| visited the scene some weeks ago, and was
it is claimed, takeE in tow by the ring, ane
misled by a quantity of a kind OF afida
Wits that are to be had cheap in that
nejghborhood. The result is seen in thu
statement Of the Independent. This &C
ton affects much larger interests thar
those Of Wright, for just north OF hi
claim, on the same bench, aud partly ii
the same township, the members OF The
Sun River Canal Company. prominent cap
italists of Helena and elsewhere, have sew
enteen or eighteen sections claimed under the
Desert Act. On the strength OF these
claims they have expended a large amount
of money in constructing IN irrigatine
canal some sixty miles in length. With 50
much at stake these gentleman will form an
alliance with the other parties interested,
and bring great pressure to bear with a view
Of reversing Sparks recent decision. 1t
seems a little peculiar that the valley
lands should be excluded from the ruling,
as the bottom lands on Sun River, Belt
Creek, and one or two other streams, are
the only lands in that section that could
yield crops without irrigation, but this is
accounted for by the statement that the
Townsite Company now hold valley land
that was proved up under the Desert Act.
One thing is certain, that If there is any
desert land in Montana, the majority OF
the land in the above township, belong to
that class, and if they are withdrawn from
filing under that act, the act might as well
be repealed altogether. The immediate
result will be wal over the innumerable
claims in dispute in the neighborhood Of
Great Falls, and some interestisg develop
ments may be expected.